Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This...
Transcript of Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This...
![Page 1: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Society at a Glance 2011OECD SOCIAL INDICATORSThis sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several new ones, and features a special chapter on unpaid work. It includes data on the four newest OECD members: Chile, Estonia, Israel and Slovenia. Where available, data on Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Russia and South Africa are also included.
Chapter 1. Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing: Unpaid Work around the World
Chapter 2. Interpreting OECD Social Indicators
Chapter 3. Society at a Glance: An Overview
Chapter 4. General Context Indicators• Household income• Fertility• Migration• Family • Old age support rate
Chapter 5. Self-suffi ciency Indicators• Employment • Unemployment• Student performance • Pensionable years• Education spending
Chapter 6. Equity Indicators• Income inequality• Poverty• Income diffi culties• Leaving low income from benefi ts • Public social spending
Chapter 7. Health Indicators• Life expectancy• Infant mortality• Positive and negative experiences • Water and air quality• Health spending
Chapter 8. Social Cohesion Indicators• Trust• Confi dence in social institutions• Pro- and anti-social behaviour• Voting• Tolerance
www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators
ISBN 978-92-64-09852-781 2011 04 1 P -:HSTCQE=U^]ZW\:
So
ciety at a Glance 2011 O
EC
D S
OC
IAL IN
DIC
AT
OR
S
Please cite this publication as:
OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en
This work is published on the OECD iLibrary, which gathers all OECD books, periodicals and statistical databases. Visit www.oecd-ilibrary.org, and do not hesitate to contact us for more information.
Society at a Glance 2011OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS
![Page 2: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
![Page 3: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Society at a Glance2011
OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS
![Page 4: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
This work is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. The
opinions expressed and arguments employed herein do not necessarily reflect the official
views of the Organisation or of the governments of its member countries.
ISBN 978-92-64-09852-7 (print)ISBN 978-92-64-09853-4 (PDF)ISBN 978-92-64-11112-7 (HTML)
The statistical data for Israel are supplied by and under the responsibility of the relevant Israeli authorities. The useof such data by the OECD is without prejudice to the status of the Golan Heights, East Jerusalem and Israelisettlements in the West Bank under the terms of international law.
Photo credits: Cover: © iStockphoto/naphtalinaChapter 4: © Stockbyte/Getty ImagesChapter 5: © Maria Taglienti-Molinari/Brand X/CorbisChapter 6: © Matthieu Spohn/PhotoAlto Agency RF Collections/Getty ImagesChapter 7: © Helen King/CorbisChapter 8: © Daniel Boiteau/Fotolia.com
Corrigenda to OECD publications may be found on line at: www.oecd.org/publishing/corrigenda.
© OECD 2011
You can copy, download or print OECD content for your own use, and you can include excerpts from OECD publications, databases and
multimedia products in your own documents, presentations, blogs, websites and teaching materials, provided that suitable
acknowledgment of OECD as source and copyright owner is given. All requests for public or commercial use and translation rights should
be submitted to [email protected]. Requests for permission to photocopy portions of this material for public or commercial use shall be
addressed directly to the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC) at [email protected] or the Centre français d’exploitation du droit de copie (CFC)
Please cite this publication as:OECD (2011), Society at a Glance 2011: OECD Social Indicators, OECD Publishing.http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/soc_glance-2011-en
![Page 5: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
FOREWORD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 3
Foreword
This is the sixth edition of Society at a Glance, the OECD’s biennial overview of social indicators.
As with its predecessors, this report addresses the growing demand for quantitative evidence on
social well-being and its trends across OECD countries. It updates some indicators included in the
previous five editions and introduces several new ones.
The 2011 report heralds the arrival of four new OECD member countries: Chile, Estonia, Israel and
Slovenia. These countries are included in Society at a Glance for the first time. Data on Brazil, China,
India, Indonesia, the Russian Federation, and South Africa are also included separately where available.
This report features a special chapter on unpaid work (Chapter 1). It also provides a guide to
help readers in understanding the structure of OECD social indicators (Chapter 2), and a summary
of the main trends (Chapter 3). Indicators are then considered. More detailed information on
indicators, including some not included in this print edition, can be found on the OECD web pages
(www.oecd.org/els/social/indicators/SAG).
This report was prepared by Simon Chapple and Maxime Ladaique. Nabil Ali, Michael De Looper,
Michael Förster, Pauline Fron, Herwig Immervoll, Gaetan Lafortune, Thomas Liebig, Pascal Marianna,
Veerle Miranda (special chapter), Marlène Mohier, Dominique Paturot, Andrew Reilly,
Dominic Richardson, Kim Robin and Olivier Thévenon all made valuable contributions.
Monika Queisser, Head of the OECD Social Policy Division, supervised the report.
![Page 6: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
![Page 7: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 5
Table of Contents
Acronyms and Conventional Signs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Chapter 1. Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing:Unpaid Work around the World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Unpaid work and well-being. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
What is unpaid work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Measuring unpaid work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Time use in OECD countries and emerging economies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Differences between men and women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Types of unpaid work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Valuing unpaid work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 2. Interpreting OECD Social Indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
The purpose of Society at a Glance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The framework of OECD social indicators. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
The selection and description of indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
What can be found in this publication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Chapter 3. Society at a Glance: An Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Chapter 4. General Context Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
1. Household income . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
2. Fertility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3. Migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4. Family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
5. Old age support rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Chapter 5. Self-sufficiency Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
1. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
2. Unemployment. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
3. Student performance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4. Pensionable years. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5. Education spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
![Page 8: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 20116
Chapter 6. Equity Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
1. Income inequality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
2. Poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
3. Income difficulties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4. Leaving low income from benefits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
5. Public social spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
Chapter 7. Health Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
1. Life expectancy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
2. Infant mortality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
3. Positive and negative experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
4. Water and air quality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
5. Health spending . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Chapter 8. Social Cohesion Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
1. Trust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
2. Confidence in social institutions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
3. Pro- and anti-social behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
4. Voting. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
5. Tolerance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
This book has...
StatLinks2A service that delivers Excel® files
from the printed page!
Look for the StatLinks at the bottom right-hand corner of the tables or graphs in this book. To download the matching Excel® spreadsheet, just type the link into your Internet browser, starting with the http://dx.doi.org prefix. If you’re reading the PDF e-book edition, and your PC is connected to the Internet, simply click on the link. You’ll find StatLinks appearing in more OECD books.
![Page 9: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
ACRONYMS AND CONVENTIONAL SIGNS
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 7
Acronyms and Conventional Signs
OECD country ISO codes
Other major economy country ISO codes
Conventional signs. . Not available.
(➘) in the legend relates to the variable for which countries are ranked from left to right in
decreasing order.
(➚) in the legend relates to the variable for which countries are ranked from left to right in
increasing order.
Australia AUS Japan JPN
Austria AUT Korea KOR
Belgium BEL Luxembourg LUX
Canada CAN Mexico MEX
Chile CHL Netherlands NLD
Czech Republic CZE New Zealand NZL
Denmark DNK Norway NOR
Estonia EST Poland POL
Finland FIN Portugal PRT
France FRA Slovak Republic SVK
Germany DEU Slovenia SVN
Greece GRC Spain ESP
Hungary HUN Sweden SWE
Iceland ISL Switzerland CHE
Ireland IRL Turkey TUR
Israel ISR United Kingdom GBR
Italy ITA United States USA
Brazil BRA Indonesia IDN
China CHN Russian Federation RUS
India IND South Africa ZAF
![Page 10: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
![Page 11: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Society at a Glance 2011
OECD Social Indicators
© OECD 2011
9
Chapter 1
Cooking and Caring, Building and Repairing:
Unpaid Work around the World1
![Page 12: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201110
Unpaid work and well-beingFamilies devote substantial unpaid time to productive activities such as cooking,
cleaning and caring. This unpaid work increases overall consumption of goods and
services and represents implicit income (Becker, 1965). As countries industrialise, a large
part of the household production of food, clothing and caring for family members may be
transferred to markets and purchased by families. At a national level, well-being is often
proxied by aggregate income or production per head (e.g. GDP per capita) and changes in
well-being by the corresponding growth rate. But levels of well-being will be under-
reported if there is a considerable amount of unpaid work. Additionally, well-being gains
will be over-reported if GDP growth occurs because of reductions in unpaid work and
increases in paid work (Stiglitz et al., 2009).
Ignoring home production may also bias measures of income inequality and poverty
rates (Abraham and Mackie, 2005). For instance, families where one parent does the
cooking and cleaning and looks after the children will have a higher disposable income
than households with the same income and hours worked, but where both parents do paid
work and buy cleaning and childcare services in the market. While standard income-based
living standards treat these two families as identical, Frazis and Stewart (2010) show that
an inequality measure including valuation of family production is more equally distributed
as unpaid work varies much less than paid work across households.
In addition to unpaid work within the home, people also carry out vital unpaid work
for relatives and for the wider community. Voluntary work, such as helping out neighbours,
caring for people of all ages with or without disabilities, supporting charities, assisting
immigrants, training sports teams, and administering schools, also contribute directly and
indirectly to societal well-being.
This special chapter sheds light on the importance of unpaid work as an important
well-being indicator by making use of detailed time-use surveys for 26 OECD countries, and
for China, India and South Africa.
What is unpaid work?Unpaid work is the production of goods and services by family members that are not
sold on the market. Some unpaid work is for consumption within the family, such as
cooking, gardening and house cleaning. The products of unpaid work can also be
consumed by people not living in the household, e.g. cooking for visiting friends, mowing
lawns of an elderly relative, or coaching the local children’s football team.
The boundary between unpaid work and leisure is determined by the “third-person”
criterion. If a third person could be paid to do the activity, it is considered to be work.
Cooking, cleaning, childcare, laundry, walking the dog and gardening are therefore all
examples of unpaid work. On the other hand, someone else cannot be paid to watch a
movie, play tennis, or silently read a book on another’s behalf as the benefits of the activity
would accrue to the doer (the third person), and not to the hirer (Ironmonger, 1996).
Consequently these latter activities are considered to be leisure.
![Page 13: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 11
Some unpaid work, e.g. playing with children, walking the dog, cooking or tending a
garden, is often enjoyable (see Society at a Glance 2009 on reported enjoyment of various
activities). This form of satisfaction is a benefit that cannot be transferred to another
person. Thus the level of enjoyment of the person doing the activity cannot be used to
distinguish between work and leisure (Hill, 1979).
Measuring unpaid workTime-use surveys record how people allocate their time, typically using a 24-hour
diary. In addition, these surveys provide information on the context of the activity – where
people did it, with whom they did it and what other activities they did at the same time,
the frequency of the activity – and the socio-economic characteristics of the person and
their family.
Several issues may significantly affect country comparability of time-use data,
including the collection methodology, the length of diary time slots, and the number of
days on which diaries are completed (Miranda, 2011). Ideally, time-use surveys are spread
over the whole year and thus contain a representative proportion of weekdays and
weekend days, as well as public and school holidays. Some countries, however, only cover
particular periods in the week or year, typically chosen to avoid seasonal biases such as
those due to public holidays or annual leave for workers. This is the case, to varying
degrees, for Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico and
South Africa. Excluding holiday periods leads to an over-estimation of annual paid working
time and an under-estimation of unpaid work and leisure time for these nine countries.
Second, Ireland and Mexico use a simplified variant of the time-use diary. Thus, time-use
estimates for Ireland and Mexico are much less precise than for other countries. In
addition, in the Mexican time-use survey, respondents are asked about their time use
during the seven days prior to the interview. Given the large time lapse between the activity
and the interview, responses are likely to be rougher estimates of the true time use. As
time-use surveys were taken in different years, with countries at different stages in the
economic cycle and with access to different levels of technology, this may be another
reason for between-country variations observed.
To improve cross-country comparability, where possible, data consider populations
aged 15-64. Activities are aggregated into five main categories: 1) unpaid work; 2) paid work
or study; 3) personal care; 4) leisure; and 5) other time use. “Unpaid work” includes
activities like routine household work (e.g. cooking, cleaning and gardening), caring for
children and other family and non-family members, volunteering, and shopping. “Paid
work or study” covers full-time and part-time jobs, unpaid work in family business/farm,
breaks in the workplace, time spent looking for work, time spent in education, and
homework. “Personal care” covers sleep, eating and drinking, and other household,
medical, and personal services (hygiene, grooming, visits to the doctor, etc.). “Leisure”
includes hobbies, watching television, computer use, sports, socialising with friends and
family, attending cultural events, and so on. “Other” contains religious activities and civic
obligations, as well as unspecified time use.
Time spent on travel is treated as a derived activity and classified in the same category
as the activity to which it is linked, even though, strictly speaking, travelling does not
follow the third-person criterion of unpaid work, as it is not possible to hire someone to
travel on one’s behalf. Journeys can, however, also have multiple destinations. Often people
try to save time by combining travel to work with dropping off their children at school or
shopping on the way home. As a rule, travelling time is recorded in the time-use surveys
![Page 14: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201112
according to the destination. For example, driving from home to work is regarded as travel
related to paid work, from work to school as travel related to childcare, from school to the
grocery store as travel related to shopping, and from the grocery store to home as travel
related to shopping.
Time use in OECD countries and emerging economiesAcross the 29 countries for which data are available (all OECD averages used here are
unweighted averages of the countries presented in the charts), people average 3.4 hours
per day (24-hours) on unpaid work, or 14% of the day (Figure 1.1). There is much variation
in unpaid work between countries. Mexicans spend the most time on unpaid work, about
four and a half hours per day. People in Japan, Korea and China do the least unpaid work,
about half the time of Mexicans. In all countries, personal care, including sleeping and
eating, takes up most of people’s time, accounting for 46% of a 24-hour day on average. The
remaining time is spent on leisure (20% of people’s total time) and in paid employment or
study (on average 19% of people’s time). Less than 1% of a day is devoted on average to
religious activities and other unspecified time use.
Figure 1.1. People spend one-tenth to one-fifth of their time on unpaid workTime use by main activity in percentage of total time use for the population aged 15-64
over the period 1998-20091
1. Australia: 2006; Austria: 2008-09; Belgium: 2005; Canada: 2005; China: 2008; Denmark: 2001; Estonia: 1999-2000;Finland: 1999-2000; France: 1998-99; Germany: 2001-02; Hungary: 1999-2000; India: 1999; Italy: 2002-03; Ireland:2005; Japan: 2006; Korea: 2009; Mexico: 2009; the Netherlands: 2006; New Zealand: 1998-99; Norway: 2000-01;Poland: 2003-04; Portugal: 1999; Slovenia: 2000-01; South Africa: 2000; Spain: 2002-03; Sweden: 2000-01; Turkey:2006; the United Kingdom: 2000-01; the United States: 2008.
2. For a number of countries it was not possible to restrict the sample to the population aged 15-64. The age limitsare Australia: 15+; China: 15-74; Hungary: 15-74; Sweden: 20-64. A different upper age limit is unlikely to affecttime use significantly. A lower age limit will diminish the importance of unpaid work.
3. Surveys for Canada, China, Denmark, France, Ireland, Japan, Korea, Mexico and South Africa do not cover acomplete calendar year and thus, to varying degrees, under-represent holidays. As people do more unpaid workon weekends, excluding holidays overestimates paid work and underestimates unpaid work and leisure.
4. Ireland and Mexico use a simplified time-use diary. Mexicans are also asked about their time use during the sevendays prior to the interview. Hence, estimates for Ireland and Mexico are less precise.
5. For Hungary, only pre-prepared tables on time use are available and the categories are not always entirelycomparable with the aggregations used for the other countries. The comparison of Hungary with other countriesshould thus be interpreted with caution.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011, for more details).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381437
100
80
60
40
20
0
%
9 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 16 16 16 16 16 17 17 18
24 24 2618 18 20 17 22 19 16 19 17 21 20 19 18 16 19 20 18 16 16 19 17 18 20 20 17 17
24
4548 44
48 4348 51 42 46 48
4744
45 44 46 44 45 43 43 47 46 4648
45 44 44 4746 46
43
20 16 16 20 2518 17 21 21 23 19
24 19 20 20 22 24 22 22 20 22 2317 21 22 20 16
20 18 15
Unpaid work () Paid work or study Personal care Leisure Other
Korea
3
China2
, 3
Japa
n3
South
Africa
3
Norway
India
Franc
e3
Canad
a3
Spain
Belgium
Hunga
ry2,
5
Finlan
d
Austri
a
United
States
OECD
United
Kingdo
m
German
y
Irelan
d3, 4
Sweden
2
Italy
Netherl
ands
Denmark
3
New Ze
aland
Poland
Sloven
ia
Eston
ia
Portug
al
Austra
lia2
Turke
y
Mexico
3, 4
![Page 15: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 13
Be it paid or unpaid, people spend about one-third of their time working. Total working
time is lowest in Western Europe and South Africa and highest in Japan and Mexico
(Figure 1.2). In Japan and Mexico, people work respectively nine and ten hours per day in
total. People in Belgium, Denmark, Germany, and South Africa work about seven to seven
and a half hours per day. In most countries, time spent on paid work exceeds time spent on
unpaid work, with the exceptions of Australia and Turkey. While the average paid working
time may seem low, it should be borne in mind that the figures cover weekdays, weekends
and holidays, and include the employed and non-employed.
Countries with high paid work time, like China, Japan and Korea, tend to have low
unpaid working time. The opposite is true for Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand and
Turkey (Figure 1.3). The apparent trade-off between unpaid and paid work is also reflected
in the lower variation for total working time across countries compared with that of paid
work and unpaid work.
Differences between men and womenIn all countries women do more unpaid work than men (Figure 1.4). The gender gap
averages 2.5 hours per day. But there is significant divergence in the gender gap across
countries. For instance, Turkish, Mexican and Indian women spend per day 4.3-5 hours
more on unpaid work than men, while the difference is only a little over one hour in the
Nordic countries. Indian and Mexican gender differences are driven by the long hours
women spend in the kitchen and caring for children. In Southern Europe, Korea and Japan,
women also do considerably more unpaid work than the men.
Figure 1.2. Total working time is lowest in Western Europe and highest outside Europe
Total minutes worked, paid and unpaid, per day
Note: Travelling time related to paid and unpaid work is included in the respective categories. See Figure 1.1 forcountry-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381456
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
Paid work or study Unpaid work
Belgium
Denmark
German
y
South
Africa
Franc
e
Netherl
ands
Finlan
d
Norway
United
Kingdo
mIta
lySpa
in
Hunga
ry
Poland
Austra
lia
Irelan
dKor
eaInd
ia
Turke
y
Sweden
Sloven
ia
United
States
OECD
New Ze
aland
China
Austri
a
Eston
ia
Canad
a
Portug
al
Japa
n
Mexico
![Page 16: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201114
Countries with the largest gender gap in unpaid work are also those countries where
men devote relatively little time to unpaid work (Figure 1.5, Panel A). Men’s unpaid working
time averages less than an hour a day in Korea, India and Japan, 1.5 hours in China and
South Africa, nearly two hours in Turkey, Italy, Mexico, Portugal and Spain, and 2.5 hours in
the rest of the countries shown here. The low amount of men’s unpaid work is not always
compensated by high amounts for women (Figure 1.5, Panel B). In China, for instance, both
men and women spend very little time on unpaid work in comparison with other countries.
In Australia, on the other hand, both sexes are at the top of the unpaid work ranking.
Figure 1.3. Trade-offs between paid and unpaid workMinutes of paid and unpaid work
Note: Travelling time related to paid and unpaid work is included in the respective categories. See Figure 1.1 forcountry-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381475
Figure 1.4. Women do more unpaid work than men in all countriesFemale less male unpaid working time in minutes per day
Note: See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381494
200
300
250
200
150
100220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 380 400
R2 = 0.22
AUS
AUTBEL CAN
CHN
DNK
EST
FIN
FRA
DEUHUN
IND
IRLITA
JPN
KOR
MEX
NLD NZL
NOR
POLPRT
SVN
ZAF
ESP
SWE
TUR
GBRUSA
Minutes of unpaid work per day
Minutes of paid work per day
300
200
100
0
Denmark
Sweden
Norway
Finlan
d
Belgium
Canad
a
United
States
German
y
Netherl
ands
Eston
ia
Sloven
ia
Franc
e
United
Kingdo
mAus
tria
New Ze
aland
Poland
Austra
lia
Hunga
ryChin
aOEC
D
South
Africa
Irelan
dKor
eaSpa
inJa
pan
Italy
Portug
al
Turke
y
Mexico Ind
ia
![Page 17: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 15
What drives large gender differences in unpaid work? Women have become
increasingly active in the paid labour market over the past few decades and have decreased
their unpaid working time. There is a strong negative correlation between a country’s
female employment rate and women’s average unpaid working time (Figure 1.6). Part of
women’s reduced unpaid work is picked up by men, as shown by the positive correlation
between a country’s female employment rate and men’s average unpaid working time. But
even in the country with the highest unpaid working time among men – Denmark – men
still devote less time to unpaid work than women in Norway, the country with the lowest
female unpaid working time.
Figure 1.5. Asian men spend the least hours in unpaid work, Mexican and Turkish women the most
Minutes of unpaid work per day
Note: See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381513
400
300
100
200
0
400
300
100
200
0
Panel A. Men
Korea
India
Japa
nChin
a
South
Africa
Portug
alIta
lySpa
in
Mexico
Turke
y
Hunga
ry
Irelan
dOEC
D
Austri
a
Franc
e
Canad
a
United
Kingdo
m
Belgium
Norway
Finlan
d
United
States
Poland
New Ze
aland
Netherl
ands
German
y
Sloven
ia
Eston
ia
Austra
lia
Sweden
Denmark
Panel B. Women
Norway
Korea
China
Denmark
Finlan
d
Belgium
Canad
a
Sweden
South
Africa
Franc
e
United
States
Netherl
ands
Hunga
ryJa
pan
German
y
Austri
a
United
Kingdo
mOEC
D
Sloven
ia
Eston
iaSpa
in
New Ze
aland
Poland
Irelan
d
Austra
lia Italy
Portug
alInd
ia
Mexico
Turke
y
![Page 18: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201116
Part of the reason for women’s higher share of unpaid work is their shorter time in
paid work. As shown in Figure 1.7, the gender difference in total working time – the sum of
paid and unpaid work, including travelling time – is close to or below zero for countries
with high female employment. Longer hours spent on housework and caring by women are
compensated with shorter paid work hours. Part-time paid work for women is common in
Australia, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom, where more than
40% of women work on a part-time basis (OECD, 2007). In countries with a relative lack of
Figure 1.6. Men do more unpaid work as women do more paid and less unpaid work
Note: The female employment rates are for the population aged 15-64 years and correspond to the year during whichthe time-use survey was undertaken. See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011) and OECD Labour ForceSurveys for female employment rates.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381532
Figure 1.7. Countries with high female paid employment have a more equal gender division in total working time
Note: The female employment rates are for the population aged 15-64 years and correspond to the year during whichthe time-use survey was undertaken. See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011) and OECD Labour ForceSurveys for female employment rates.
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381551
500
400
300
200
100
020 30 40 50 60 70 80
AUS AUT
BELCAN
CHN DNK
EST
FINFRA
DEU
HUNIRL
ITA
JPNKOR
MEX
NLDNZL
NOR
POLPRT
SVN
ZAFESP
SWE
TURGBR
USA
AUS
AUT
BEL
CAN
CHN
DNKEST FIN
FRA DEUHUNIRL
ITAJPNKOR
MEX
NLDNZLNOR
POL
PRT
SVN
ZAF ESP
SWE
TURGBRUSA
Minutes of unpaid work per day
Female employment rate (%)
Male: R2 = 0.22 Female: R2 = 0.44
20
120
80
40
0
-4030 40 50 60 70 80
R2 = 0.32
AUS
AUTBELCAN
CHN
DNK
EST
FINFRA
DEU
HUN
IRL
ITA
JPN
KORMEX
NLD
NZL NOR
POL
PRT
SVNZAF
ESP
SWE
TUR
GBR
USA
Female-male gender gap in total working time, minutes per day
Female employment rate (%)
![Page 19: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 17
opportunity for part-time work, particularly in Southern Europe, the presence of children
is an important factor associated with women’s exit from the labour market (Lewis et al.,
2008). These countries are also those were women work much longer hours in total
(Figure 1.7).
Government policies, such as working-time regulations, family policies and gender
equality initiatives, can influence women’s roles in unpaid work (Baker, 1997; Gornick and
Meyers, 2003; and Hook, 2006). On the one hand, publicly subsidised formal childcare
relieves mothers of some childcare responsibilities and encourages their paid work. On the
other hand, long parental leave arrangements are primarily used by women, reinforcing
traditional gender roles and damaging mothers’ labour attachment. Non-transferable
paternal entitlement to paid leave increase chances of more equal leave sharing between
mothers and fathers, but so far there is no evidence of the longer-term effect on the
division of housework (OECD, 2011).
Types of unpaid work
Routine housework
Most unpaid work is routine housework – cooking, cleaning, gardening and home
maintenance. Across the 29 countries, people spend on average two hours and eight
minutes per day on housework (Figure 1.8). The total duration varies, however, greatly
across countries, as does the importance of routine housework within total unpaid work.
For instance, Koreans spend only 1.4 hours per day on housework, but it accounts for
60% of their total time spent on unpaid work. Australians, on the other hand, devote on
Figure 1.8. Routine housework is the largest component of unpaid work1
Minutes of unpaid work per day by main categories
1. See Figure 1.1 for additional country notes.2. For Australia, Hungary and Ireland, care for household members cannot be separated from care for non-
household members. In the Korean and Japanese time-use surveys, there is no distinction between care forhousehold members and care for non-household members. Instead they make a distinction between family careand care for others. All care for family members is consequently included in the category care for householdmembers, irrespective of whether the family members live in the household.
3. For Mexico, travelling time cannot be separated from the activity to which it is linked, except for some travelrelated to childcare. Each of the sub-categories is thus slightly overestimated.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381570
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Routine housework
Care for non-household members
Care for household members
Travel related to unpaid workVolunteering
Shopping
Korea
2
China
Japa
n2
South
Africa
Norway
India
Franc
e
Canad
aSpa
in
Belgium
Hunga
ry2
Finlan
d
Austri
a
United
States
OECD
United
Kingdo
m
German
y
Irelan
d2
Sweden Ita
ly
Denmark
Netherl
ands
Portug
al
New Ze
aland
Poland
Sloven
ia
Eston
ia
Austra
lia2
Turke
y
Mexico
3
![Page 20: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201118
average more than two hours to routine housework but it represents only half of their total
unpaid working time. Compared with the other components of unpaid work, there is less
variation across countries in routine housework (coefficient of variation of 0.17).
Care for household members and shopping are typically the next largest unpaid work
categories, lasting respectively 26 and 23 minutes per day on average. The relative
importance of both time categories differs across countries, but there is less variation in
shopping (coefficient of variation of 0.26) than in caring (coefficient of variation of 0.34).
The variation across countries is largest for voluntary work (coefficient of variation of 1.10),
with the average daily volunteering time ranging from less than one minute in India and
Korea to 8 minutes in Ireland and the United States.
Childcare
Childcare is often combined with other activities, e.g. cooking while a child is playing
in another room. Time-use surveys deal with multitasking by recording both “primary”
activities (“what were you doing?”) and “secondary” activities (“were you doing anything
else at the same time?”). One limitation of such an approach is that primary activities tend
to be meticulously tracked while secondary ones are usually overlooked (and in some
countries not even collected). Some surveys encourage respondents to report their
secondary activities by listing clear examples on the diary form. However, as not all
countries do such priming, recording of secondary activities can vary across countries
(Folbre and Yoon, 2007).
Several surveys try to capture the diffuse nature of childcare by including additional
childcare questions. These questions are defined either as the time spent in the proximity
of a child (e.g. “who was with you?”) or as the time being responsible for a child (e.g. “was a
child in your care?” or “were you looking after a child?”). The advantage of such questions
is that they are more likely to pick up respondents who would otherwise not record their
responsibility. They also better capture passive childcare, which is fundamentally different
from active childcare as it constrains other activities rather than being an activity in itself
(Budig and Folbre, 2004). On the other hand, both the proximity method and the
responsibility method may overstate childcare when several adults share the caring
responsibility for the child.
Figure 1.9 sets out the different methodologies of measuring childcare: the
respondent-recorded method in Panel A and the proximity and responsibility method in
Panel B. Across the 22 countries for which consistent data are available,2 parents average
1 hour and 12 minutes per day on childcare as a primary activity. Adding secondary
childcare raises the average substantially to almost two hours per day.3 Total time devoted
to (primary) childcare is lowest in Korea, Belgium and Hungary – occupying less than
one hour per day – and highest in the Anglophone countries. The impact of priming
respondents is visible in the extremely high childcare estimates for Australia. The
Australian time diary gives clear examples of secondary childcare which encourage
parents to record passive childcare. The largest category of secondary childcare in Australia
is child minding, accounting for almost four hours per day for parents of children under
15 years of age.
Panel B of Figure 1.9 compares two measures of passive childcare. In the 16 countries
which added a proximity question to their time-use survey, parents spend on average
four hours per day with their children. The responsibility method (asked only in
two countries) provides even higher estimates of childcare, reaching 6.7 hours per day in
the United States and 5.3 hours in Canada, although the difference with the proximity
![Page 21: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 19
Figure 1.9. Parents’ active and passive childcareMinutes of childcare per day1
1. See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for additional country-specific notes.2. Respondent-recorded childcare refers to the amount of time spent on childcare that respondents report
themselves in their time-use diaries, either as a primary or secondary activity. The estimates refer to care forchildren under the age of 18, except for Australia and Canada (less than 15 years).
3. Estimates for Australia also include time spent on care of non-household children. However, this is unlikely toaffect the results significantly as such care tends to be low. For instance, in the United States, parents devote onaverage 77 minutes per day to care for children of their own household, compared with two minutes fornon-household children.
4. The proximity method measures passive childcare by time spent in the presence of a child. The responsibilitymethod measures passive childcare based on the amount of time respondents are responsible for the care of achild. Unfortunately, the age cut-off for both methods differs significantly across countries: 10 years in mostEuropean countries – with the exception of Denmark (18 years), Ireland (18 years), and Portugal (14 years) –15 years in Canada and 13 years in the United States.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381589
500
400
300
200
100
0
500
400
300
200
100
0
Panel A. Respondent-recorded childcare2
Primary childcare () Secondary care
Korea
South
Africa
Belgium
Hunga
ry
Franc
e
Sloven
iaJa
pan
Eston
ia
German
y
Denmark
Norway
Finlan
dOEC
DIta
ly
Poland
Sweden
Spain
United
Kingdo
mAus
tria
United
States
Canad
a
Irelan
d
Austra
lia3
Panel B. Proximity and responsibility method4
Proximity method ()
Portug
al
Sloven
ia
Belgium
Poland
Eston
ia
German
y
Norway
Spain
Sweden Ita
lyOEC
D
United
Kingdo
m
United
States
Canad
a
Denmark
Austri
a
Irelan
d
Responsibility method
![Page 22: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201120
method is minimal for Canada. The country ranking of passive childcare is very similar to
the active childcare measures in Panel A, with Slovenia and Belgium at the bottom and
Austria, Denmark and Ireland at the top.
Not only does the total amount of time devoted to childcare differ by parental gender, but
it also differs by type of activities. A distinction can be made between: 1) physical care, such as
meeting the basic needs of children, including dressing and feeding children, changing
diapers, providing medical care for children, and supervising children; 2) educational and
recreational childcare, such as helping children with their homework, reading to children, and
playing games with children; and 3) travel related to any of the two other categories, e.g. driving
a child to school, to a doctor or to sport activities. Mother’s childcare time is dominated by
physical childcare and supervision, accounting for 60% of their childcare activities
(Figure 1.10). Fathers, on the other hand, spend proportionally more time in educational and
recreational activities than mothers, i.e. 41% of their total childcare time compared with 27% of
mothers’ total childcare time. Still, mothers spend more than twice as much time in childcare
than do fathers, a pattern which holds for all countries and the different subgroups. On
average in the 22 countries for which data are available, childcare takes up 42 minutes per day
for fathers whereas it occupies 1 hour and 40 minutes of mothers’ time.
Caring for adults
Caring for adults is part of the insurance function of families and of great importance
in an environment where populations are ageing rapidly. Care for adults receives much less
attention in time-use surveys than care for children does. However, many surveys do not
even publish caring for the elderly as a separate category. In addition, adult care is not
separated by the age of the person that is being cared for, so it is often impossible to make
a distinction between care for an ill or disabled spouse or other relative. Only the Korean
time-use survey has separate categories for care for parents, spouse and other family
members. Differences in definition and presentation thus make the comparison of adult
care across countries extremely difficult.
Table 1.1 lists the countries’ average duration of adult care according to a range of
different classifications used. In the first ten countries, care for adult household members
can be separated from care for children, as well as from care for non-household members.
In those countries, adult care takes up 0.2 to 6 minutes per day. Similar results can be
Figure 1.10. Women devote most of their time to physical childcare, while men devote most of their time to teaching, reading and playing with their children
Time devoted to different types of primary childcare
Note: The figures are unweighted averages over the 21 countries for which data is available. The estimates refer to care for children underthe age of 18, except for Australia and Canada (under 15). See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381608
Fathers Mothers
Physical careand supervision
of child,00:20, 45%
Physical careand supervision
of child,01:02, 60%
Educationaland recreationalcare, 00:18, 41%
Transporting a child,00:06, 14%
Educationaland recreationalcare,00:28, 27%
Transportinga child,00:14, 13%
![Page 23: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 21
found for Japan and Korea, where these numbers also cover care for family members who
do not live in the household. In the Australian and Irish time-use surveys, care for
household adults cannot be separated from care for non-household adults and the average
time spent on adult care is visibly higher. For the twelve European countries of the
Harmonised European Time Use Survey (HETUS), adult care is classified together with
household management under the category “Other domestic work”. For most countries,
the total time spent on these activities is noticeably higher than in the previously
discussed countries. However, in Poland and Slovenia, and to a lesser extent in Finland,
France, Italy and the United Kingdom, the total minutes devoted to other domestic work
are very low (one to four minutes per day), suggesting that people spent very little time in
adult caring. Finally, women devote on average more time to adult caring than men
irrespective of the classification used (with the exception of Estonia). But the difference is
much smaller than for childcare.
Table 1.1. Different classification of adult care across countries complicates comparison1
Minutes devoted to adult care (excluding travel)
Total (➚) Men Women
Caring for adult household members
Netherlands 0.2 0.2 0.2
South Africa 0.6 0.2 1.0
Denmark 0.8 0.9 0.8
Austria 1.2 0.5 1.8
India 1.3 0.6 2.1
United States 1.9 1.5 2.4
Canada 2.0 1.0 3.0
Portugal 2.0 0.0 3.0
Turkey 3.4 3.3 3.6
Mexico 6.0 3.0 8.8
Caring for adult family members2
Japan 2.9 1.0 5.0
Korea 4.0 2.0 5.0
Caring for adults3
Ireland 8.0 3.1 13.0
Australia 9.0 7.0 11.0
Other domestic work4
Poland 1.0 1.0 2.0
Slovenia 2.0 2.0 3.0
Finland 4.0 4.0 5.0
France 4.0 4.0 4.0
Italy 4.0 3.0 4.0
United Kingdom 4.0 4.0 4.0
Estonia 5.0 6.0 5.0
Belgium 8.0 7.0 9.0
Germany 9.0 7.0 11.0
Spain 11.0 5.0 16.0
Sweden 11.0 10.0 13.0
Norway 12.0 11.0 13.0
1. See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes.2. Care for adult family members also includes care for family members who do not live in the household.3. Care for adults covers both household adults and non-household adults.4. Other domestic work includes household management and care for adults.Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).
1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932382159
![Page 24: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201122
Women cook, clean and care and men build and repair
Men and women do different sorts of unpaid work. Typical male tasks are construction
and repair work (Figure 1.11). Men also devote slightly more time to gardening, pet care and
volunteering, but their participation rates in these activities are equal to those of women.
Tasks that have traditionally been thought of “women’s work” (e.g. cooking and cleaning)
continue to be primarily performed by women. In the countries surveyed, 82% of women
prepare meals on an average day, while only 44% of men do. The average time spent by
women on cooking is four times the time spent by men (Figure 1.11, Panel B).
Who cooks and for how much time?
The data presented in the previous sections provide information on the average time
use for all people. However not everybody does unpaid work. It is thus interesting to look at
both the participation rates in different types of unpaid work and the time spent in those
Figure 1.11. Women cook, clean and care while men build and repair
Note: See Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.8 for country-specific notes. The percentages are unweighted averages over the 29 countries for which datais available. The statistics presented in Panel B reflect the average time use for all people, including those who do not perform the task.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381627
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100%%
100 80 60 40 20 0 0 20 40 60 80 100%%
44
22
17
13
32
3
16
12
9
21
10
15
13
18
4
12
7
6
83
43
14
3
28
4
35
24
10
82
62
21
5
46
3
30
26
16
Panel A. Percentage of men and women aged 15-64 performing the task
Men Women
Cooking and food clean-up
Cleaning
Gardening and pet care
Construction and repair
Shopping
Volunteering
Total childcare
Physical childcare
Teaching, playing with children
Cooking and food clean-up
Cleaning
Gardening and pet care
Construction and repair
Shopping
Volunteering
Total childcare
Physical childcare
Teaching, playing with children
Panel B. Minutes per day devoted to the activity by men and women
Men Women
![Page 25: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/25.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 23
activities by those who perform the activity. This section focuses on cooking, the
predominant type of unpaid work.
In the 28 countries for which data are available, nearly two-thirds of people cook on an
average day. But the participation rate ranges from a minimum of 44% in Ireland and India
to more than 75% in the Nordic countries.4 Yet conditional on participation, the opposite
ranking is found for the actual cooking time (Figure 1.12, Panel B). While less than half of
the adults cook in India, those who do cook spend nearly three hours per day in the
kitchen. In Norway and Denmark, on the other hand, the large majority of the population
engages in cooking, but they devote barely one hour to it.
Figure 1.12. Fewer people cook in India, but those who do, cook a lot
Note: See Figure 1.1 for country-specific notes.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Miranda, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381646
100
40
80
20
60
0
180
150
120
90
60
30
0
Panel A. Participation rates in cooking and food clean-up, % of the population
Panel B. Average minutes per day spent on cooking and food clean-upby all respondents and participants only
Participants ()All respondents
India
Irelan
dInd
iaJa
panKor
ea
United
States
Canad
a
Turke
yIta
ly
Austri
a
Portug
al
Sloven
ia
South
Africa
China
Franc
eOEC
D
German
ySpa
in
Eston
ia
Belgium
Finlan
d
Austra
lia
Mexico
New Ze
aland
Poland
United
Kingdo
m
Netherl
ands
Denmark
Norway
Sweden
United
States
Norway
Netherl
ands
Finlan
d
New Ze
aland
Denmark
Canad
a
German
y
Sweden
United
Kingdo
m
Austra
lia
Belgium
Austri
a
Franc
e
Irelan
dOEC
D
Eston
iaKor
ea
Poland
Spain
Sloven
iaIta
lyJa
pan
Mexico
China
South
Africa
Portug
al
Turke
y
![Page 26: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/26.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201124
The United States is the only country where both the participation rate and mean time
for cooking are at the bottom of the ranking. In other words, the American population
attaches on average little importance to cooking relative to the other surveyed countries.
The United States is also one of the countries where relatively little time is spent eating as
a primary activity and where obesity rates are amongst the highest in the OECD (see Society
at a Glance 2009).5
Valuing unpaid workThere are two approaches for imputing a monetary value to unpaid work. The
opportunity-cost approach values the work at the market wage of the household member
doing the time. The underlying assumption is that the household member has foregone
earnings for home production. This approach may overstate values since much household
production does not demand high skills. For instance, applying a brain surgeon’s wage to
value the time spent walking the family dog attributes a high price to a low-skilled activity.
Besides, some household production is done by people who do not earn a market wage.
Although their wage rate could be imputed using wages rates of workers with similar
education and other observed characteristics, as these people are not working they may
have some characteristics preventing them from earning this observed market wage. The
replacement-cost approach considers what it would cost to hire a worker to perform the
activity. Using a specialist’s wage for each household task – e.g. a plumber’s wage to fix a
leak – overestimates the value of the input since specialists work more efficiently and need
less time to perform the same task. The generalist wage approach applies the wage rate of
a domestic servant or handyman to value the time devoted to all household unpaid
activities.
This chapter uses both the opportunity-cost approach and the replacement-cost
approach. In the former, a country’s average hourly wage is used to value unpaid
household work, while the average hourly wage cost for unregistered (informal) activities
is used in the latter. In both cases, estimates of hourly wages are net of taxes and social
contributions and only primary activities are taken into account.6
Figure 1.13 presents the value of labour devoted to household production of non-market
services as a percentage of GDP for the 25 OECD countries for which data are available. The
contribution of unpaid work varies greatly between countries. The replacement-cost
approach suggests that the labour devoted to unpaid work accounts for 19% of GDP in Korea
up to 53% of GDP in Portugal. The upper-bound estimates are provided by the opportunity-
cost approach. Simple country averages of both approaches suggests that between one-third
and half of all valuable economic activity in the OECD area is not accounted for in the system
of national accounts. To the extent that those large populations under age 15 and over
age 64 undertake unpaid work, these will be under-estimates.
ConclusionUnpaid work matters a great deal. As shown in this chapter, unpaid work – largely
dominated by cooking, cleaning and caring – is an important contributor to societal
well-being in ways that differ both between countries and between men and women in
different countries. The contribution of unpaid work to well-being is both in terms of
current consumption (e.g. cleaning) and improving future well-being (e.g. parental
investments in raising children). In all countries, women do more of such work than men,
to some degree balanced – by an amount varying across countries – by the fact that they do
less market work.
![Page 27: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/27.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 25
The question whether GDP growth via greater female labour force participation is a
consequence of marketisation of unpaid work, rather than attributable to a rise in
productivity, is not directly addressed in this chapter, although the country cross-sectional
data suggest that such processes occur. It is likely that the extent of this trade-off varies
across the countries considered here. It is in addressing this sort of question that the
Figure 1.13. Unpaid work accounts for one-third of GDP in the OECD member countries1
Measured as a percentage of GDP
1. Time-use estimates for the population aged 15-64 over the period 1998-2009 are used and only primary activitiesare taken into account. See Figure 1.1 for country notes.
2. A country’s average hourly wage cost for unregistered (informal) activities is used to value unpaid householdwork. For several countries, this information was not available. Instead, the following wage costs are used: wagescosts for registered activities adjusted for tax and social security contributions (Australia and Japan); 50% of theaverage net wage for the total economy (Estonia and Mexico and Poland); the average hourly wage of a childcareworker adjusted for tax and social contributions (Norway).
3. The country’s average hourly wage is used to value unpaid household work.
Source: OECD’s Secretariat estimates based on national time-use surveys (see Ahmad and Koh, 2011).1 2 http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/888932381665
80%
%
60
40
20
0
80
60
20
40
0
Panel A. Replacement-cost approach2
Panel B. Opportunity-cost approach3
Korea
Canad
a
Norway
2
Poland
2
Mexico
2
United
States
Netherl
ands
Eston
ia2
Belgium
Sweden
Austri
a
German
y
Finlan
d
Irelan
d
United
Kingdo
mFra
nce
Italy
Hunga
ry
Sloven
ia
Denmark
Spain
Japa
n2
New Ze
aland
Austra
lia2
Portug
al
Hunga
ry
Sloven
ia
Poland
Mexico
Korea
Belgium
Canad
a
Austri
a
Eston
ia
Norway
Netherl
ands Ita
ly
Irelan
dSpa
in
German
y
United
States
Finlan
d
Franc
eJa
pan
Sweden
Austra
lia
New Ze
aland
Portug
al
Denmark
United
Kingdo
m
![Page 28: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/28.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 201126
regular collection of time-use data can be of tremendous value. Equally, consideration of
unpaid work for relative inequality and for inequality over time has not been addressed
here. Such work may be part of a future agenda for the OECD as new time-use surveys
become available for many countries in the next few years.
Notes
1. This special chapter is a summary of a longer working paper by Miranda (2011), which can beconsulted for more detail, including on technical issues.
2. There are no data on parents’ childcare activities for China, India, Mexico, the Netherlands,New Zealand and Turkey. For Portugal there is only information on the proximity measure ofparents’ childcare.
3. Time-use surveys in Canada, Hungary and the United States do not ask about secondary activities.For Spain, estimates on secondary childcare are not available.
4. Participation rates for cooking and clean-up are not available for Hungary.
5. From a cross-country perspective, the relationship is less clear-cut. The correlation coefficient forcooking time and eating is –0.05 for all respondents.
6. For more detailed information on the methodology and data sources, see the forthcoming OECDStatistics Directorate Working Paper: Incorporating Household Production into International Comparisonsof Material Well-Being (Ahmad and Koh, 2011).
Bibliography
Abraham, K. and C. Mackie (2005), Beyond the Market: Designing Nonmarket Accounts for the United States,National Academies Press, Washington DC.
Ahmad, N. and S. Koh (2011), “Incorporating Household Production into International Comparisons ofMaterial Well-Being”, OECD Statistics Directorate Working Paper, OECD Publishing, Paris, forthcoming.
Baker, M. (1997), “Parental Benefit Policies and the Gendered Division of Labour”, Social Service Review,Vol. 71, No. 1, pp. 52-71.
Becker, G. (1965), “A Theory of the Allocation of Time”, Economic Journal, Vol. 75, No. 299, pp. 493-517.
Budig, M. and N. Folbre (2004), “Activity, Proximity or Responsibility? Measuring Parental ChildcareTime”, in N. Folbre and M. Bittman (eds.), Family Time, the Social Organization of Care, Routledge,New York.
Ehrenreich, B. and A. Russell Hochschild (2003), Global Woman: Nannies, Maids, and Sex Workers in theNew Economy, Metropolian Books, New York.
Folbre, N. (2009), “Inequality and Time Use in the Household”, in W. Salverda, B. Nolan and T. Smeeding(eds.), Oxford Handbook of Economic Inequality, Oxford University Press.
Folbre, N. and J. Yoon (2007), “What is Child Care? Lessons from Time-Use Surveys of MajorEnglish-Speaking Countries”, Review of Economics of the Household, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 223-248.
Frazis, H. and J. Stewart (2010), “How Does Household Production Affect Measured IncomeInequality?”, Journal of Population Economics, forthcoming.
Freeman, R. and R. Schettkat (2005), “Marketization of Household Production and the EU-US Gap inWork”, Economic Policy, Vol. 41, pp. 6-50, January.
Hill, T. (1979), “Do-It-Yourself and GDP”, Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 31-39.
Hook, J. (2006), “Care in Context: Men’s Unpaid Work in 20 Countries, 1965-2003”, American SociologicalReview, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 639-660.
Ironmonger, D. (1996), “Counting Outputs, Capital Inputs and Caring Labor: Estimating GrossHousehold Product”, Feminist Economics, Vol. 2, No. 3, pp. 37-64.
Ironmonger, D. (2001), “Household Production”, in N. Smelser and B. Baltes (eds.), InternationalEncyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral Sciences, Elsevier Science, pp. 6934-6939.
Jaumotte, F. (2003), “Female Labour Force Participation: Past Trends and Main Determinants inOECD Countries”, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 376, OECD Publishing, Paris,12 December.
![Page 29: Society at a Glance OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS · Society at a Glance 2011 OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS This sixth edition of Society at a Glance updates some indicators, introduces several](https://reader031.fdocuments.net/reader031/viewer/2022021810/5c76cede09d3f2ff328c4511/html5/thumbnails/29.jpg)
1. COOKING AND CARING, BUILDING AND REPAIRING: UNPAID WORK AROUND THE WORLD
SOCIETY AT A GLANCE 2011: OECD SOCIAL INDICATORS © OECD 2011 27
Lewis, J., M. Campbell and C. Huerta (2008), “Patterns of Paid and Unpaid Work in Western Europe:Gender, Comodification, Preferences and the Implications for Policy”, Journal of European SocialPolicy, Vol. 18, No. 21, pp. 21-37.
Miranda, V. (2011), “Cooking, Caring and Volunteering: Unpaid Work around the World”, OECD Social,Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 116, OECD Publishing, Paris (www.oecd.org/els/workingpapers).
OECD (2007), Babies and Bosses: Reconciling Work and Family Life – A Synthesis of Findings for OECDCountries, OECD Publishing, Paris.
OECD (2011), Doing Better for Families, OECD Publishing, Paris.
Stiglitz, J., A. Sen and J.P. Fitoussi (2007), “Report by the Commission on the Measurement of EconomicPerformance and Social Progress”, www.stiglitz-sen-fitoussi.fr.
Weinrobe, M. (2005), “Household Production and National Production: An Improvement of the Record”,Review of Income and Wealth, Vol. 20, No. 1, pp. 89-102.